9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 1059X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mum/2013 in the case of M/s. Wadhawa & Associates Realtors Pvt. Ltd., wherein the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed and CO filed by the assessee was considered to be infructuous. Copy of the said order was placed on our record and later on other benches of Mumbai Tribunal also followed the same and reference was made to the following decisions: 1. ITO (OSD) (TDS) 3(2) vs. Shree Naman Developers Ltd. & Others order dated 14/08/2013 in ITA Nos. 686 to 687/Mum/12 & Others 2. ITO (OSD) (TDS)3-(2) vs. M/s. Trent Limited & vice versa order dated 21/8/2013 in ITA No.4629/Mum/2012 & CO 161/Mum/2013 3. ITO (TDS) -3(4) vs. M/s. TCG Urban Infrastructure Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Vice versa, order dated 14/08/2013 in ITA No.4563/Mum/2012 & Oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of ITO vs. M/s.Wadhawa & Associates Realtors Pvt. Ltd.(supra) is as under: "9. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the order of the lower authorities and the material evidence brought on record in the form of paper Book and the judicial decisions relied upon by the rival parties. The entire grievance revolves around the premium paid by the assessee to M/s. MMRDA Ltd. for the leasehold rights acquired by the assessee through the lease deed dt. 22nd November, 2004. It is the say of the Revenue that this lease premium was liable for deduction of tax at source failing which the assessee is to be treated as assessee in default. It is the say of the assessee that such lease premium is in the nature of capital expenditure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Stock Exchange (supra) and Mukund Ltd (supra) have been well discussed by the Ld. CIT(A) is his order. The decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Khimline Pumps Ltd. (supra) squarely and directly apply on the facts of the case wherein the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has held that payment for acquiring leasehold land is a capital expenditure. Considering the entire facts in totality in the light of the judicial decisions vis-à-vis provisions of Sec. 194-1, definition of rent as provided under the said provision, we do not find any reason to tamper or interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) which we confirm. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. C.O. No. 06/M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
